Kerala High Court
Shiny George Ambat vs Union Of India on 12 June, 2023
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
1
"CR"
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 25484 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
SHINY GEORGE AMBAT
WIFE OF SUNNY GEORGE, AGED 47 YEARS,CHIEF FINANCE
OFFICER (UNDER ORDER OF TERMINATION),INDIAN
INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, KOZHIKODE,RESIDING AT
VILA NO.16, BLUE NOON VILA,KARANTHUR P.O.,
KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 571.
BY ADV SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA,MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT,DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
TECHNICAL SECTION,SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI - 110
001.
2 THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR IN CHARGE,CAMPUS P.O.,
KOZHIKODE - 673 570.
3 THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,INDIAN INSTITUTE
MANAGEMENT,CAMPUS P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 570.
4 THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,CAMPUS P.O., KOZHIKODE -
673 570.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
2
5 PROF. KULBHUSHAN BALOONI
DIRECTOR IN CHARGE,INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,CAMPUS
P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 570.
6 SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 011. [DELETED] [RESPONDENT NO.6 IS DELETED
FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 02/08/2017
IN WP(C)].
BY ADVS.
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.T.R.RAVI,SC,SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INS
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.P.GOPINATH
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.T.R.RAVISCSREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INS
SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.01.2023, THE COURT ON 12.06.2023 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
3
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(c).No.25484 of 2017
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2023
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
1)To call for the records leading to the decision in the 79 th Board
Meeting of the 3rd respondent whereby the decision not to take
further action on Exhibit P32 appeal submitted by the petitioner
has been taken and to quash the same by the issuance of writ of
certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction.
2) Declare that the petitioner herein is fully entitled to be retained
and confirmed in service as Chief Finance Officer in the 2 nd
respondent Institute and to direct the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner in service and to consider declaration of her probation in
the post of Chief Finance Officer by the issuance of writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate, writ, order or direction.
3)Declare that the petitioner herein is entitled to be reinstated in
service with full backwages and continuity in service for the period
she was kept out of service illegally and to direct the respondents
to disburse to petitioner full backwages for the period she was kept
out of service and to grant her continuity of service from the date
she was suspended from service, by issuance of writ of
mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
while the petitioner was working as Financial Advisor under
the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Science and
Technology, the 2nd respondent issued notification inviting
applications for the post of Chief Finance Officer. Since the
petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications she applied for
the same through proper channel and Ext.P2, Offer of
appointment was issued by the 4th respondent on 27.01.2015
stating the stipulations regarding probation and declaration of
probation. It is submitted that the petitioner joined the 2 nd
respondent institute on 10.04.2015. After completing one year
of probation the petitioner submitted her Annual Performance
Appraisal Report (APAR) for the year 2015-16 before the 4 th
respondent and that she also completed Induction Training
Program. It is submitted that petitioner was reporting to 4 th
respondent and that there was no direct reporting to the 2 nd/5th
respondent. It is further submitted that when the petitioner
refused to accede to the illegal demands of the 5 th respondent,
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
requiring her to transfer funds to IIM Amristar without the
sanction of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was required to
report to the 2nd/5th respondent directly.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner was under the impression
that her probation will be declared w.e.f 10.04.2016, but on
01.11.2016, the petitioner was asked by the 2 nd/5th respondent
to avail one month's leave in order to facilitate smooth and
impartial enquiry with respect to certain financial irregularities
and that a committee was also constituted to inquire into the
irregularities. Thereafter, the Finance and Accounts Officer
was asked to take over the charge of office of Chief Finance
Officer with immediate effect. It is submitted that though the
petitioner tried to meet the 2 nd/5th respondent in person, she
was informed that 2nd /5th respondent was not available and the
petitioner was also denied access to her office room.
Thereafter on 30.11.2016 the salary of the petitioner from the
petitioner's salary account was also withdrawn under the
instructions of the 5th respondent, which was later restored
only with intervention of the 3rd respondent.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
5. On 1.12.2016, petitioner reported to the office of the 4 th
respondent for rejoining duty, but she was not permitted to
rejoin duty. It is submitted that the petitioner was never put on
notice with respect to the ongoing enquiry and on 13.12.2016
she received Ext.P11 order placing her under suspension. The
petitioner made a request for the copy of the report of the Fact
Finding Committee referred in Ext.P11, but the same was not
received. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P13 appeal
against Ext.P11 order. Immediately after filing Ext.P13, the
petitioner was issued with a Ext.P14 Memorandum dated
02.01.2017 enclosing the copy of the report and asking the
petitioner to file defence within 10 days.
6. It is submitted that on receipt of Ext.P14, the petitioner
approached the respondents 2 and 3 requesting permission to
access all documents and correspondences but the same was
rejected stating that those documents are irrelevant to the
issue in hand. Thereafter, the petitioner was given the
opportunity for namesake and originals were not shown. The
petitioner thereafter approached the respondents pointing out
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
the mismatches in the report and also submitted an
explanation for the allegations leveled against her. It is also
submitted that petitioner submitted Exts.P17 and P27
representations seeking to revoke the suspension and to
reinstate her. On 23.02.2017, the petitioner was issued with
Ext. P30 order revoking her suspension, and relieving her
from the post of Chief Finance Officer on account of
unsatisfactory performance. Aggrieved by Ext. P30 order
petitioner filed Ext.P32 appeal before the 3 rd respondent. It is
submitted that petitioner was asked to submit No Dues
Statement and on 27.04.2017 Rs.1,45,642 was transferred to
her account. Thereafter 3rd respondent decided not to take any
further action on the appeal submitted by petitioner since she
had already been relieved from service.
7. It is submitted that the discharge from service of the
petitioner is punitive and is without following the mandatory
provisions in Exhibit P36 Instructions on Probation of Central
Government Employees. It is further submitted that she joined
the 2nd respondent institution after submitting technical
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
resignation and that a lien for 2 years is to be maintained in
the parent department. However Ext.P38 order was issued,
relieving the petitioner from service w.e.f 09.04.2015 after
sanctioning her terminal benefits.
8. It is submitted that the impugned order is a non speaking one
and is passed without application of mind and that the
petitioner is also entitled to protection under Article 311 of the
Constitution of India.
9. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that under Section 35 of the Indian Institute of
Management Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the IIM Act)
regulations have been framed and notified by the IIM which
provides that every person employed by the Institute before
the commencement of the Act shall hold the office with the
same tenure, remuneration and upon the same terms and
conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to leave,
gratuity and other matters as he or she would have held had
the regulations not been effected and shall continue to do so
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
until his or her employment is terminated, contract is closed
or until such tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions of
service are altered following a process of appointment
pursuant to the regulations. The Regulations provide that
conditions of service of non-teaching regular staff are
functionally approved by the Director as per the CCS Rules. It
is, therefore, contended that the conditions of service at the
time of appointment being as per the CCS Rules, the
termination of service should also be strictly in accordance to
such rules.
10.It is submitted that the IIM, Kozhikode was established in
1996, being one out of 20 IIMS established till 2016. It is
submitted that the Memorandum of the Association and Rules
of the Indian Institute of Management Society, Kozhikode,
registered under the Societies Registration Act provide power
to create posts, to make appointments as also regulate the
conditions of service of employees. The institute had decided
to adopt the Central Civil Services Rules to govern the service
conditions of its employees. Therefore, at the time the
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
petitioner entered service as also at the time when the
proceedings were initiated and decision taken to terminate her
probation was adopted, the petitioner was an employee
governed by the provisions of the CCS Rules and the
termination from service which was clearly against the
provisions of the rules was therefore illegal and is liable to be
interfered with.
11.A counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents
2 to 5. It is stated that the petitioner was on probation and
has no right under law to hold the post and that her service
can be terminated at any point of time and that the
termination was only a termination of probation and was not
punitive. It is also stated that the petitioner has not followed
the basic accounting principle of maintaining separate bank
account for the funds belonging to IIM, Amritsar and that the
petitioner was not found suitable for the post. It is submitted
that the allegations raised against the 5 th respondent are
without any factual basis and that none of the works
demanded by the 5th respondent from the petitioner was within
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
the parameters of the scope of the work required from the
petitioner. It is submitted that the certain grants were credited
to the account of 2nd respondent to be utilized for IIM Amritsar
and the petitioner, in spite of specific instructions vide
Ext.R2(a), committed irregularities. It is also submitted that
the petitioner's non compliance with accounting practices was
evident from the table prepared by the petitioner, since she
failed to mention the 5 crores received from MHRD for IIM,
Amritsar. An enquiry was initiated into the matter and the
petitioner was asked to take leave "with immediate effect until
further orders" to avoid tampering of evidentiary documents
and to conduct a fair enquiry. During the enquiry, certain
other irregularities including unauthorized inter-bank
transfers during 2016-17 were also noticed. Since the
petitioner was indulging in procedural irregularities, she was
relieved from the post after hearing her. It is also submitted
that the petitioner was relieved of her duty solely due to her
poor and unsatisfactory performance.
12.A reply affidavit has been placed on record by the petitioner
stating that the petitioner completed her probation on
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
09.04.2016 and that as on the said date there were no
complaints against the petitioner and that the allegations
regarding non accounting of fund happened much after the
completion of probation period and her suitability ought to
have been assessed as on 09.04.2016. It is stated that the
petitioner was not aware of that funds transferred were of IIM
Amritsar and also that sanction for transfer was granted only
after petitioner relieving from service. Regarding the enquiry,
it is stated that the petitioner was not put on notice regarding
the details of the enquiry and was also not given a reasonable
opportunity.
13.An additional affidavit has also been placed on record by the
respondents 2 to 5 stating that the 1 st respondent cannot be
held to be a "State" or other "authority" under Article 12 of
the Constitution and hence this writ petition is not
maintainable and is only liable to be dismissed. It is also
submitted that respondent is an autonomous body governed by
the provisions of the IIM Act and that it is managed by its
Board of Governors, hence neither the Central Government
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
nor the State Government has any dominant role in the affairs
of the Institute. The 2017 Act and 2019 Regulations are
produced and it is contended as follows:-
"a) The Institute is constituted under the Indian Institutes of
Management Act, 2017.
b) No part of the assets of the Institute is held by the
Government.
c) No financial assistance is given by the Government to meet the
whole or entire expenditure of the Institute.
d) The Institute does not enjoy a monopoly status in imparting
education in the field of management knowledge.
e) There is no existence of a deep and pervasive State control.
The control if any is only regulatory in nature.
f) The functions of the Institute are not public functions nor are
they closely related to governmental functions.
g The Institute is not created by transfer of a Government owned
corporation. It is an autonomous body. "
14. It is also stated that the respondent Institute is only carrying
out functions relating to education, research, training etc. and
that it is not performing any public function to come under the
definition of "State". It is submitted that the respondent
institution is financially independent and has an audit system
like other private organizations. It is also submitted that the
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
Act empowers the respondent to receive gifts, grants and
contributions to meet its expenses and that the accounts of the
Institute are subject to the audit of Comptroller and Auditor
General of India, only for the purpose of verifying the
expenditure of grants given by the Government.
15.A reply affidavit has also been placed on record to the
additional affidavit filed by the respondents 2 to 5 stating the
writ petition is maintainable. Placing reliance on Section 5(f)
of the Act, it is contended that since the writ petition was filed
on 1.08.2017 and that the Act was brought into force only
from 31.12.2017, it is contended that the writ petition is
maintainable. It is also stated that Act itself declares that the
institution is of National importance and that while imparting
education in higher studies, it is discharging a public function
and is therefore amenable to writ jurisdiction.
16.The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the
judgments of the Apex Court to contend that a writ can be
issued against an authority performing public duty. Some of the
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
decisions cited are Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee
Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust
and others v. V.R Rudani and others; [AIR 1989 SC 1607],
Janet Jeypaul v. SRM University and Others [AIR 2016 SC
73], S.Azeez Basha v.Union of India [AIR 1968 SC 662], Ajai
Hasia and others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others
[1981(1) SCC 722], Sukhdev Singh and Others v.
Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Another [AIR
1975 SC 1331], Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v.
Mohan Lal and Others [AIR 1967 SC 1857]. The petitioner
also places reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court
in Anjana Vyas (Dr.) v. National Law University and others
[2017 KHC 3554] to contend that the respondent is amenable
to writ jurisdiction.
17.In Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas
Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and
others v. V.R Rudani and others; the Apex Court was
considering the question whether a Writ of Mandamus can be
issued against the management of an affiliated college, it was
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
held that a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can be issued to any other person or
authority performing the public duty to enforce such duty.
18.In S.Azeez Basha v.Union of India a Five Judge Bench again
held that the words "Educational institutions" used in Article
30(1) of the Constitution of India would take in a university also.
19.In Ajai Hasia and others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and
others also it was held that an institution need not be State
under Article 12 for it to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction
under Article 32, since the Article did not limit the powers of
the Apex Court to issue writs or orders for the enforcement of
fundamental rights.
20.In Sukhdev Singh and Others v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh
Raghuvanshi and Another and Rajasthan State
Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal and Others the
larger Bench held that other authorities under Article 226
would include all constitutional or statutory authorities on
whom powers are conferred by law.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
21.The decisions in Janet Jeypaul v. SRM University and
Others and the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in
Anjana Vyas (Dr.) v. National Law University and others
also held that a deemed University which is discharging the
public function of imparting education and to which all the
provisions of the UGC Act are made applicable is an authority
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
22.The learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on the
judgments of the Apex Court to contend that this writ petition
is not maintainable. Some of the judgments cited are Chander
Mohan Khanna v. National Educational Research &
Training & Ors [1991(4) SCC 578]; Tekraj Vasandi v. Union
of India [1988(1) SCC 236], Pradeep Kumar Biswas v.
Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors [(2002) 5 SCC
111], RD Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India
& Ors [1979 3 SCC 489], Zee Tele films Ltd.& Anr v. Union
of India &Ors [2005(4) SC 649], Rajbir Surjbhan Singh v.
Chairman, IBPS [2019(14) SCC189], Ramakrishna Mission
& Anr v. Kago Kunya &Ors [2019(16) SCC 303], Girish G &
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
Anr v. State of Kerala and other 2020 SCC Online Ker 1903,
Indian Institute of Management v. Ukakant Srivastava
[2021 SCC Online Guj 61].
23.The decision in Chander Mohan Khanna v. National
Educational Research & Training & Ors [1991 (4) SCC 578]
is relied on to contend that when the question whether a writ is
maintainable against a particular body is being considered,
each case should be handled on its own facts. Where the
financial assistance from the State is so much as to meet
almost the entire expenditure of the institution or the share
capital of the corporation is completely held by the
Government, it would afford some indication of the body being
impregnated with Government character. Article 12 should not
be stretched so as to bring in every autonomous body which
has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the
expression "State". It is stated that the combination of State
aid coupled with an unusual degree of control over the
management and policies of the body and rendering of an
important public service being the obligatory functions of the
State may largely point out that the body is "State". Following
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
the decision in Tekraj Vasandi v. Union of India [1988 (1)
SCC 236] it was found that the Institute of Constitutional and
Parliamentary Studies (ICPS), which was founded as a
voluntary organisation and received substantial annual
financial contribution from the State where finance was
received from other sources also and its objects were not
governmental businesses, the institute does not answer the
definition of State.
24.In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical
Biology & Ors [(2002) 5 SCC 111] it is stated as follows:-
"40. The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests
formulated in Ajay Hasia' are not a rigid set of principles so that if a
body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesi, be
considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The
question in each case would be-- whether in the light of the
cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally
and administratively dominated by or under the control of the
Government. Such control must be particular to the body in
question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a
State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is
merely regulatorv whether under statute or otherwise, it would not
serve to make the body a State."
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
25.In RD Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India
& Ors [1979 3 SCC 489] the Apex Court found that while a
Corporation can be established by statute or incorporated
under a law such as the Companies Act or the Societies
Registration Act and if the entire share capital of the
Corporation is held by the Government, it would go long way
towards indicating that the Corporation is an instrumentality
or agency of the Government. In the case of a statutory
corporation, if the administration is in the hands of a Board of
Directors appointed by the Government, though this
consideration may not be determinative, it was held that it is
not possible to formulate all-inclusive or exhaustive test and
the facts of each case must be taken into account. It is further
stated that where financial assistance of the State is so much
as to meet almost entire expenditure of the Corporation, it
would afford some indication of the Corporation being of
Governmental character. But where financial assistance is not
so extensive, then the question of degree of control over the
management and policies has to be looked into to ascertain
whether the Corporation is State. It is further held that it is
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
difficult to distinguish between governmental functions and
activities and non-governmental functions. It is therefore
contended that the facts of each case has to be considered to
arrive at a proper conclusion.
26.In Zee Tele films Ltd.& Anr v. Union of India &Ors
[2005(4) SCC 649], it was held as follows:-
"35. In conclusion, it should be noted that there can be no two
views about the fact that the Constitution of this country is a living
organism and it is the duty of Courts to interpret the same to fulfil
the needs and aspirations of the people depending on the needs
of the time. It is noticed earlier in this judgment that in Article 12
the term "other authorities" was introduced at the time of framing
of the Constitution with a limited objective of granting judicial
review of actions of such authorities which are created under the
Statute and which discharge State functions. However, because of
the need of the day this Court in Rajasthan State Electricity Board
and Sukhdev Singh noticing the socio- economic policy of the
country thought it fit to expand the definition of the term "other
authorities" to include bodies other than statutory bodies. This
development of law by judicial interpretation culminated in the
judgment of the 7-Judge Bench in the case of Pradeep Kumar
Biswas. It is to be noted that in the meantime the socio-economic
policy of the Government of India has changed [See Balco
Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors. (2002 2 SCC
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
333)] and the State is today distancing itself from commercial
activities and concentrating on governance rather than on
business. Therefore, the situation prevailing at the time of
Sukhdev Singh (supra) is not in existence at least for the time
being, hence, there seems to be no need to further expand the
scope of "other authorities" in Article 12 by judicial interpretation
at least for the time being. It should also be borne in mind that as
noticed above, in a democracy there is a dividing line between a
State enterprise and a non- State enterprise, which is distinct and
the judiciary should not be an instrument to erase the said
dividing line unless, of course, the circumstances of the day
require it to do so."
27.In Rajbir Surjbhan Singh v. Chairman, IBPS [2019(14)
SCC 189] it was held that the question as to whether a
corporation would fall within the meaning of Article 12 should
be decided after examining whether the body is financially,
functionally and administratively dominated by or under the
control of the Government. Such control should be particular
to the body in question and must be pervasive. A control,
which is merely regulatory under the statute or otherwise
would not make a body State under Article 12.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
28.Further in Ramakrishna Mission & Anr v. Kago Kunya &
Ors [2019(16) SCC 303] it was held that before an
organization can be held to discharge a public function, the
function must be of a character that is closely related to
functions which are performed by the State in its sovereign
capacity.
29.In Girish G & Anr v. State of Kerala and other [2020 KHC
289] a single Judge of this Court after analysing all the
decisions on the point held that on an analysis of the
Memorandum and Articles of Association of the CIAL, it
cannot be said that the CIAL is financially functionally and
administratively dominated by or under the control of the
Government or that it has any Government conferred
monopoly in providing air traffic services under the relevant
statutes and is only facilitating the Airport Authority to
perform its statutory obligations. It was, therefore, found that
the CIAL cannot be said to be an authority or instrumentality
of the State within the meaning of Article 12.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
30.A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Indian
Institute of Management v. Ukakant Srivastava [2021
SCC Online Guj 61] is also relied on. After considering all the
relevant judgments as well as the pleadings and materials on
record, it was found that there is nothing to show that overall
effective control over the IIMA rests with the Government.
The learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court held that
the institute performs public functions in the field of
management, education and research. However, on an
analysis of the materials on record, the Division Bench held
that it is not correct to say that the IIM is performing public
function in the field management education, training and
research and is also involved in like activities and therefore it
is a State within the meaning of Article 12. If the IIMA acts in
breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in connection
with admission of students to the institute, the Court may
invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 and grant relief.
However, it was held that the performance of the public
function of education and management is not adequate to hold
that the institute is State under Article 12.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
31.Though a Special Leave Petition was filed against the said
judgment, the same was closed without going into the merits
of the case and leaving open the legal contention whether the
IIM would answer definition of 'State' under Article 12. It is
pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
that the said judgment was delivered on 29.9.1993 and the
situation now is that whatever State control was in existence
has also been divested by the 2017 Act. Reliance is placed on
the objects of the Act to contend that the bill was intended to
declare certain Institutes of management to be institutions of
national importance and that the intention was to divest the
governmental control in the institutes so that they would
become autonomous institutions and would thus be free to
perform their functions without governmental interference
tampering their essential functions.
32.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents
has taken me extensively through the provisions of the Indian
Institutes of Management Act. 2017. This writ petition was
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
filed on 31.7.2017. The Act was brought into force on
31.12.2017. The Act is purported to be an enactment to
declare certain Institutes of management to be institutions of
national importance with a view to empower the institutions to
attain standards of global excellence in management,
management research and allied areas of knowledge and to
provide for certain other matters connected therewith on
incidental thereto. The institutes mentioned in Column (5) of
the Schedule are to be body corporate with perpetual
succession and common seal.
33.Section 5 provides that all properties movable and immovable
of or belonging to every existing institute shall vest in the
corresponding institute. The objects, powers and functions of
the institutes are provided in the enactment. This includes the
power to acquire, hold and deal with property, provided that
where the land for the Institute has been provided free of cost
by a State Government or the Central Government such land
may be disposed of only with the prior approval of the Central
Government.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
34.Section 7(m) enables institutes to recive grants, gifts and
contributions and to have custody of the funds including
internally generated funds of the institute to meet the
expenses, including capital expenditure of the Institute and
expenses incurred in the exercise of its powers and functions.
35.Section 10 provides for a Board of Governors with one
nominee of the Central Government having charge of the
management education or his representative. The other
members are also specifically provided in Section 10.
36.Section 11 provides as follows:-
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board of every Institute
shall be responsible for the general superintendence, direction and
control of the affairs of the Institute and shall have the power to
frame or amend or modify or rescind the regulations governing the
affairs of the Institute to achieve the objects of the Institute specified
in section 6.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Board
shall have the following powers, namely:--
(a) to take decisions on questions of policy relating to the
administration and working of the Institute;
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
(b) to examine and approve the annual budget estimates of the
Institute;
(c) to examine and approve the plan for development of the Institute
and to identify sources of finance for implementation of the plan;
(d) to establish departments, faculties or schools of studies and
initiate programmes or courses of study at the Institute;
(e) to set-up centres of management studies and allied areas within
the country under intimation to the Central Government;
(f) to grant degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions or
titles, and to institute and award fellowships, scholarships, prizes and
medals;
(g) to confer honorary degrees in such manner as may be specified
by the regulations;
(h) to grant honorary awards and other distinctions;
(i) to create academic, administrative, technical and other posts and
to make appointments thereto:
Provided that the cadre, the pay scales, allowances and term of
employment of such posts shall be such as may be determined by the
Central Government;
(j) to determine, by regulations, the number and emoluments of such
posts and to define the duties and conditions of services of the
academic, administrative, technical and other staff;
(k) to set-up centres of management studies and allied areas outside
India in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Central
Government from time to time and in accordance with the provisions
of the laws for the time being in force in such foreign country;
(l) to pay, variable pay to the Director of the Institute on the basis of
performance objectives as may be specified by the regulations;
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
(m) to specify by regulations, the fees to be charged for courses of
study and examinations in the Institute;
(n) to specify by regulations the manner of formation of department
of teaching;
(o) to specify by regulations the institution of fellowships,
scholarships, exhibitions, medals and prizes;
(p) to specify by regulations the qualifications, classification, terms of
office and method of appointment of the academic, administrative,
technical and other staff of the Institute;
(q) to specify by regulations the constitution of pension, insurance
and provident funds for the benefit of the academic, administrative,
technical and other staff;
(r) to specify by regulations, the establishment and maintenance of
buildings;
(s) to specify by regulations, the conditions of residence of students
of the Institute and levying of fees for residence in the halls and
hostels and of other charges;
(t) to specify by regulations, the manner of authentication of the
orders and decisions of the Board;
(u) to specify by regulations, the quorum for meetings of the Board,
the Academic Council or any Committee, and the procedures to be
followed in the conduct of their business;
(v) to specify by regulations, the financial accountability of the
Institute; and
(w) to exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as
may be conferred or imposed upon it by this Act or the rules made
thereunder.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board may by
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
regulations, delegate such powers and functions of the Board to the
Director as it may deem fit.
(4) The Board shall conduct an annual review of the performance of
the Director, in the context of the achievements of objects of the
Institute:
Provided that such review shall include performance reviews of
faculty members of the Institute on such parameters, periodicity and
terms of reference as may be determined by the Board.
(5) The Board shall, through an independent agency or group of
experts, within a period of three years from the date of incorporation
of the Institute, and thereafter at least once every three years,
evaluate and review the performance of the Institutes, including its
faculty, on the parameters of long term strategy and rolling plans of
the Institutes and such other parameters as the Board may decide
and the report of such review shall be placed in public domain.
(6) The qualifications, experience and the manner of selection of the
independent agency or group of experts, referred to in sub-section
(5), shall be such as may be specified by regulations.
(7) The report of the evaluation and review under sub-section (5)
shall be submitted by the Board to the Central Government along
with an action taken report thereon.
(8) Where in the opinion of the Chairperson or the Director the
situation is so emergent that an immediate decision need to be taken
in the interest of the Institute, the Chairperson, in consultation with
the Director may issue such orders as may be necessary, recording
the grounds for his opinion:
Provided that such orders shall be submitted for ratification by the
Board in the next meeting.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
(9) The Board shall in the exercise of its power and discharge of its
functions under this Act, be accountable to the Central Government."
37.Section 23 provides for maintenance of accounts, including
income and expenditure statements, internal audit report and
statement audited by internal auditor and prepare annual
statement of accounts including balance sheet in such form
and as per such accounting standard as may be specified by
notification by the Central Government in consultation with
the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
38.Section 23(3) provides that the accounts of every institute
shall be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of
India and any expenditure incurred by audit team in
connection with such audit shall be payable by the Institute to
the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
39.Section 28 provides as follows:-
"(1) The annual report of every Institute shall be prepared under
the directions of the Board, which shall include, among other
matters, steps taken by the Institute towards the fulfilment of its
objects and an outcome based assessment of the research being
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
undertaken in such Institute.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression
"outcome based assessment of research" shall mean an elaboration
and analysis of the research conducted and the qualitative and
quantitative outcomes of such research along with its impact factor
and social outcomes.
(2) The annual report prepared under sub-section (1) shall be
submitted to the Board on or before such date as may be specified by
the Board who shall consider the report in its meeting.
(3) The annual report on its approval by the Board shall be published
on the website of the Institute.
The annual report of each Institute shall be submitted to the Central
Government who shall, as soon as may be, cause the same to be laid
before both Houses of Parliament. "
40.Section 33 provides that the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 shall apply to each Institute as if it were
a public authority established by notification issued or made
under Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Right to Information Act,
2005.
41.Rule making power is provided to the Central Government
under Section 34 in specified matter and the Board is
empowered to make regulations and the Academic Council is
empowered to frame ordinances.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
42.Section 38 provides that if any difficulty arises in giving effect
to the provisions of the Act, the Central Government may, by
order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions
not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act for removing the
difficulty.
43.It is pertinent to note that the rule making power of the
Government under Section 34 is for carrying out the provisions
of the Act and in particular with regard to the terms and
conditions of service of the Director under sub-section (2),
travelling and such other allowances payable to the members
of the Co-ordination Forum for attending its meetings or its
committees under sub-section (4) of Section 29 and any other
matter which is to be or may be prescribed or in respect of
which provision is to made by the Central Government by
rules. It is the Board which has to frame regulations in respect
of number of posts, emoluments and duties and conditions of
service of the academic, administrative, technical and other
staff under Clause (j) of sub-section (2) of Section 11. The
Regulations provide for sanction of non-academic post by the
Board and further that the cadre pay scales, allowances and
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
terms of employment of the posts shall be as determined by the
Central Government. It is, therefore, clear that there is no
statutory mandate with regard to the conditions of service of
employees of the institute, except the proviso to Section 11(2)
(i) that the cadre, pay scales, allowances and term of
employment of academic, administrative, technical and other
posts shall be such as may be determined by the Central
Government. The Board of the Institute is empowered to
specify, by regulations, the qualifications, classification, terms
of office and method of appointment of the academic,
administrative, technical and other staff. The rules made by
the Central Government and the first regulation made by the
Board are required to be placed before each House of
Parliament for a total period of thirty days and if both houses
agree in making any modification in the rule or regulation, or
both the Houses agree that the rule or regulations shall not be
made, the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only
in such modified form or be of no effect as the case may be.
So, however, that any modification or annulment shall be
without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done
under that rule or regulation. In the instant case, no rule or
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
regulation framed with regard to the service conditions of
employees is produced or relied on.
44.The Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode, a Society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is
incorporated as the Indian Institute of Management,
Kozhikode under the provisions of the Act. It is contended by
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that
the very purpose of the 2017 enactment was to remove the
State control over the Indian Institute of Managements and to
make them totally autonomous bodies so as to facilitate proper
management, education and research in such institutes. It is
contended that it is only in the matters of actual conduct of
management, education and research as also in matters of
grant of admissions to such institutes that the writ jurisdiction
of this Court would be attracted and in matters relating to
employment, the institute would be an autonomous body and
in such matters of employment, the institute would not be
amenable to writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that in the
purely autonomous nature of the institution after the 2017
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
enactment, the petitioner's contentions relying on the
provisions of the CCS Rules would not be tenable and that the
employee of a purely autonomous body cannot claim the
protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The
mere fact that the CCS Rules have been made applicable, by
adoption, would also not make any difference to the situation,
it is argued.
45.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
power to issue writs, especially the writ of mandamus under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not confined to
statutory authorities or instrumentalities of the State and can
be issued to any other person performing public duties and
that since the imparting of management education is a public
duty being performed by the institute, a writ would be
maintainable. The decisions of the Apex Court holding that
since deemed universities are engaged in imparting education
and discharging a public function and have to function in
accordance with the UGC Act and Regulations, they would be
State under Article 12 and that writs would be maintainable
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
However from a careful examination of the decisions placed on
record, I notice that the settled position of law is that in the
case of any authority which does not fall under the ambit of
State under Article 12, a writ would definitely be maintainable
for enforcing the performance of a statutory duty or a public
duty. However, the pointed question being addressed here is
whether the discharge of a probationer from service would be
a matter in which this Court can exercise jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any
statutory inhibitions cast on the institute, which is an
autonomous body.
46.In the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in the
light of the statutory provisions referred to above, I am of the
opinion that the contention that the IIM, Kozhikode would
answer the definition of State or "Instrumentality of State"
under Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot be
accepted. Though the constitution of the governing body
appears to be by way of nomination, the institute is specifically
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
intended to be an autonomous institution. It is true that the
institute is performing the duty of imparting education in
management and carrying out research in the field. However,
there is no monopoly intended to be created either by the
Statute or by any other means in favour of such institutes in
the matter of imparting of management education. The
Institute is not a creature of the Statute, since it was a society
whose functions were brought under the purview of 2017 Act.
It is clear from the materials placed on record by the
respondents that the funds made available by the Government
do not constitute a substantial amount so as to meet even a
major portion of the expenditure of the institute. A reading of
the provisions of the Act and the Regulations would make it
clear that there is no control contemplated on the internal
administration of the institute by the Central Government.
There are also no statutory rules with regard to the service
conditions of the employees of the institute. The provision for
placing the accounts before the Comptroller and Auditor
General and to obtain prior approval from the Government in
case of alienation of immovable property, in case the land was
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
provided of free of cost by a State Government or a Central
Government, would not be sufficient to hold that there is deep
and pervasive State control of the affairs of the institute so as
to bring it within the ambit of Article 12.
47.The contention of the petitioner that the orders of
appointment referred to the Central Civil Service Rules and
that proceedings had been initiated against her under the
provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control
& Appeal) Rules, 1965 by itself cannot make any difference to
the situation, since the adoption of the rules or the
implementation of such rules to employees of an authority,
which is not a State under Article 12, by itself will not confer
on the employee the status of a public servant to contend that
the reliefs as sought for in this writ petition are liable to be
granted.
48.In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that a writ
or direction, as sought for in this writ petition, cannot be
issued against the IIM, Kozhikode in respect of an order in the
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
nature which is challenged herein. It is true that a writ would
be issued to the IIM, even if it does not answer the definition
of State or its instrumentality under Article 12 in case there is
any infringement of the statutory provisions or if there is any
violation of the fundamental rights in the case of grant of
admission or any of the matters directly covered by the 2017
Act. However, in the factual situation available in the instant
case, I am of the opinion that it would not be possible for this
Court to exercise jurisdiction and enter into the controversy
whether the order of termination of the petitioner was a
termination of Probation Simplicitor or whether it amounted to
a punitive termination without following the due procedure
provided in the CCS Rules, which have been made applicable
by adoption.
49.It is made clear that this Court being called upon to consider
only the factual situation arising in the instant case where IIM,
Kozhikode was a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act and there is nothing to show that it was
substantially financed by the Government even before the
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
2017 Act and that this judgment would not be applicable in the
cases of any other institutions where the factual situation may
be different.
50.Though the impugned proceedings were passed before the
2017 Act and they are under challenge before this Court, this
Court has to consider the situation in existence at the time
when a writ is being issued. With the 2017 Act, the Institute
became a wholly autonomous body with no substantial
governmental interference in its internal administration. If
that be so, I am of the opinion that no writ can be issued
against the IIM, Kozhikode for the purposes, as sought for in
this writ petition. I make it clear that I have considered only
the maintainability of the writ petition and have not ventured
into the facts of the case. In case the petitioner has any
statutory or civil remedy, the time spent before this Court in
pursuing this writ petition will essentially be deducted to
enable the petitioner to avail such remedy as available to her
under law.
sd/-
Anu Sivaraman, Judge
sj
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25484/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED
FOR THE POST OF CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.06-
01(15)/2014-IIMK.GA DATED 27.01.2015
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.06-
01(15)/2014-IIMK.GA DATED 26.02.2015
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICER ORDER NO.06-
07(B-123)/2015-IIMK.GA DATED 17.04.2015
ISSUED BY THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT INSTITUTE.
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE INTER OFFICE NOTE DATED
04.08.2016 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL ADDRESSED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.11.2016
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND/5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER
NO.IIMK/GEN/232/2016 DATED 01.11.2016
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.11.2016
ADDRESSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL AS FORWARDED TO
THE PETITIONER BY THE FINANCE & ACCOUNTS
OFFICER ON 02.11.2016.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
EXHIBIT P11. TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER
NO.29/07(B-213)/2016-IIMK-HR DATED
09.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12. TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 14.12.2016
SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 28.12.2016
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM
NO.IIMK/DIR/01/2017 DATED 02.01.2017
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
DATED 24.11.2016.
EXHIBIT P16. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.01.2017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
09.01.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.01.2017
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.01.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P20. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.01.2017
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P21. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
18.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
EXHIBIT P22. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.01.2017
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P23. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
20.01.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P24. TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 23.01.2017
ADDRESSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P25. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
23.01.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P26. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.01.2017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P27. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
01.02.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P28. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.02.2017
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P29. TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE DATED
15.02.2017 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P30. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.29-
07(B-213)/2017-IIMK.HR DATED 20.02.2017
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P31. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.02.2017
ISSUED BY THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
EXHIBIT P32. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 20.03.2017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P33. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.04.2017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P34. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.02/2017-
IIMK/CPIO - DATED 12.06.2017 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P35. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE ON
FORENSIC AUDIT FROM THE WEBSITE OF
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY FREE ONLINE LEGAL
DICTIONARY 2ND EDITION.
EXHIBIT P36. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPILATION OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA INSTRUCTIONS ON
PROBATION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES.
EXHIBIT P37. TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT MODIFYING THE
DELEGATION OF POWERS.
EXHIBIT P38. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&A.IV/PF-
2185/SCTIMST/2017 DATED 21.04.2017
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P39 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL ADDRESSED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ON 18.10.2016.
EXHIBIT P40 TRUE COPY OF THE APAR FOR THE PERIOD
FROM 10.04.2015 TO 30.06.2017 DTD.
4.8.16
EXHIBIT P41 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 27.10.2016
TO THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER-HR
AND HIS REPLY THEREOF.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
EXHIBIT P42 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE
PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER
EXHIBIT P43 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF PROBATION
CLEARANCE COMMITTEE SIGNED ON 12.01.2017
EXHIBIT P44 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FOR PROCESSING
CASE FOR CLOSURE OF
PROBATION/CONFIRMATION OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 20.10.2016.
EXHIBIT P45 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT NO.R-
01/2018 DATED 28.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE
SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT INSTITUTE.
EXHIBIT P45 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SEPARATE
AUDIT COMMENTS ON THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF THE
INDIAN INSTITUTE O MANAGEMENT KOZHIKODE FOR
THE YEAR ENDING 31 MARCH 2020 DOWNLOADED FROM
THE WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P46 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SEPARATE
AUDIT COMMENTS ON THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF THE
INDIAN INSTITUTE O MANAGEMENT KOZHIKODE FOR
THE YEAR ENDING 31 MARCH 2021 DOWNLOADED FROM
THE WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P47 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION ON MOE FUNDED
TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS DOWNLOADED FROM THE
WEBSITE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
UNDER THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 5.12.2022.
EXHIBIT P48 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION ON INDIAN
INSTITUTES OF MANAGEMENT FUNDED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ON 5.12.2022.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN INSTRUCTION
DATED 16.07.2016 WITH REERENCE NO.
E36/1/15-FBA.
EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED
26.10.2016 OF THE MHRD.
EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE MHRD'S LETTER NO.
36/3/2016-TS-V DAED 31.10.2016 TO THE
2ND RESPONENT.
EXHIBIT R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.
IIMK/DEANS/221/2016 DATED 23.05.2016
WITH RESPECT TO THE ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE.
EXHIBIT R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE
RECEIPT OF THE DOCUMENTS BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 19.1.2017.
EXHIBIT R2(F) TRUE COPY OF THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF
MANAGEMENT ACT THE RULES AND REGULATIONS
THEREOF.
EXHIBIT R2(G) TRUE COPY OF COMPOSITION OF THE PRESENT
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE RESPONDENT
INSTITUTE.
EXHIBIT R2(H) TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL STATMENT OF
ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPONDENT INSTITUTE
INCLUDING BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME AND
EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT (WITHOUT ITS
SCHEDULES) AS PUBLISHED IN ANNUAL REPORT
FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016.
W.P.(C).No.25484/17
EXHIBIT R2(I) TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL STATMENT OF
ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPONDENT INSTITUTE
INCLUDING BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME AND
EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT (WITHOUT ITS
SCHEDULES) AS PUBLISHED IN ANNUAL REPORT
FOR THE YEAR 2016-2017.
EXHIBIT R2(J) TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL STATMENT OF
ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPONDENT INSTITUTE
INCLUDING BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME AND
EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT (WITHOUT ITS
SCHEDULES) AS PUBLISHED IN ANNUAL REPORT
FOR THE YEAR 2017-2018.
EXHIBIT R2(K) TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL STATMENT OF
ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPONDENT INSTITUTE
INCLUDING BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME AND
EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT (WITHOUT ITS
SCHEDULES) AS PUBLISHED IN ANNUAL REPORT
FOR THE YEAR 2018-2019.
TRUE COPY
PS TO JUDGE
